Im reading the continuing signs and guessing that its your fantasy to be surrounded by Nazis?:hmmm:

Why don't you go and wave the Finnish flag in a Finnish counsil meeting and see what happens. Actually, tell me when you're going to do it, I'd like to be there to witness it. :haha:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/thum...umb_troll1.gif

Back on topic for the minute (at least until a certain troll shows up again and tries to derail this thread once more):
Today my dad was fined with €100.
I don't know yet if he will pay it or take legal actions.

If that were entirely true, you would have been banned ages ago for calling everyone who doesn't think like you do or agree with you a racist.

Now then, I suggest everyone play nice. No more trolling, threats, or name calling if you do not mind.

He was in the wrong, simple as that.
He wasn't arrested for exercising his right to protest, neither was he arrested for waving his flag.
He was arrested because he chose to sit in the public section of a meeting but choosing to not follow the rules that come with that choice. In fact as he was arrested for not following the rules after he had been warned that he was breaking the rules it means he was actively seeking the outcome that he got which Darkside finds so outrageous.

So the claim of.........is complete rubbish.

Try waving a flag in a public gallery of a political meeting in the US where there are bans on unauthorised demonstrations in chamber.
Try doing it after you have been told to stop.:rotfl2:

Legal actions for what?
He broke the law.

True on all of the above. But, kicking his arse (8 police)? Come on man, was resisting the removal from the building? I suspect not.

Well we only have the OP to go on and thats already been demonstrated as rather light on actual accurate factual content. But lets work on it.

Well its claimed in the OP that he was waving a stick and disrupting a meeting. How many police would you consider appropriate considering of course that Darkfish said a large number had gone to protest?
Resisting removal? He would have been told to shut up or leave , since he did neither voluntarily what were the chances of him just leaving when the police asked?
Now if he had been protesting in a country not quite as relaxed as the Netherlands then perhaps Darkfish might have been treating us to a video of his dad getting tazered or gassed or just beaten with a nightstick.

I admit my first post was not really heavy on factual content, but I did write down some more facts, and also gave a link to an article on a Dutch site. You may have missed it?
In case you have, here it is: original version (Dutch)
google translation
warning: the above site is "semi-racist" (not just yet neo-nazi but definitely right-wing) so the article is also written as such. It's all I could find on the subject however.

If you want any more facts, don't hesitate to ask:)
Not true.
Fact is, he wasn't breaking any rules at all. It's allowed to sit in the public section of the meeting holding up banners and flags and such. Both by law and by custom.
To quote from the above article: "On a previous debate the room was densely filled with banners" He simply wasn't doing anything against the law.

He did not. As you can read from the above, actually the ones who broke the law were the muncipal officials and the police. The town hall is a public building where you can demonstrate all you want, as long as you don't start any trouble (shouting, fighting etc.). He didn't do any of those so he shouldn't have been asked to leave.

Darkfish vs Tribesman
http://www.slapyo.com/wp-content/owned029.jpg

By law and by custom the chair has the say in what is permitted.

Because it is a public building then it is the public officials holding the meeting who decide what constitutes a disturbance to their meeting and they who decide if the people causing the disturbance should leave.
The funny thing is you say he wasn't causing trouble or shouting yet all that you have posted both from yourself and from that semi-nazi rag your dad got quoted in shows that its exactly what he was doing.

Facts would be a start, but failing that just carry on posting more stuff where you manage to flatly contradict your claims.

That is awesome! :up: :har:

maybe in Ireland. But here in the Netherlands the law has the say in that. The chair cannot simply throw out everyone he doesn't like.

Then I suppose you have also read that he only started shouting and causing trouble after he got arrested. Which is exactly what I said in one of my posts: "all he did was raising our flag and refusing to lower it when asked. [...] He did resist the officers, but only after he was arrested and cuffed. Most of the 'disturbance' was done by the other people protesting against him being arrested."

I must admit though the exact moment the police turned up is a bit lost in translation, making it look like the police turned up only after the "Outside the hall again following a struggle, ...", where in fact the police turns up at: "...search agents ready!" (Google translate, what do you expect:O:)
Well if you told me what facts you want to know...
There are too many facts to sum them all up, please ask for something more specific than just "facts" (e.g. "tell me something more about [...]").

As you can read above I don't contradict any of my claims

Its dutch law your father was arrested under, dutch law he was charged with and dutch law he was convicted through. Because thats the laws of the land and thats what he broke.

No that piece of causing trouble came after that "pesky usher" had already told him to stop or leave. That failure alone merits arrest as under the law as that pesky usher is charged with maintaining order in the municipal meeting on the direction of the chair. To then continue after the police arrive could actually merit another charge.

Oh but you do, and you demonstrate that you don't understand the laws or the rights concerning protest.

So for entertainment value can you enlighten people as to exactly which paragraph and article of the Criminal code in your country your father was convicted of breaking.....then explain how it isn't the law in your country and how he didn't break it.

http://www.blognow.com.au/uploads/l/...REAL/64560.gif

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/6...corncowtx0.gif

The making trouble only started after the police came. Maybe something else got a bit lost in translation so please cite the 1st sentence where my dad is shouting/causing trouble according to you.
I think I understand the Dutch law a lot better than you. I see you come from Ireland, you may know all the Irish law by heart but this isn't Ireland and we Dutchmen have got other laws.

As you wish:D
now THAT's something more specific than just a "fact" and something I can actually help you with:yeah:

OK, this is the Dutch law concerning the article my father was accused of breaking (art. 429bis-442a) (http://www.wetboek-online.nl/wet/Wet...echt.html#2598)
The articles say the following: (allow me for leaving out some obscure articles like "you may not falsely use the name of the Red Cross" and such)
You may not:

• commit blasphemy
• when in function: discriminate because of race, beliefs, gender or sexual orientation
• be on a prohibited place without permission
• photograph/draw any military installations, without permission
• be naked on public places, unless indicated otherwise
• disturb the nightly peace
• claim a royal/noble/etc. title
• etc etc etc

You can read it for yourself, my dad did none of these things.